Demand for license fee before business commencement violates natural justice principles and must be based on factual correctness.

ORDER :

SUREPALLI NANDA, J.

Heard Sri C.Ramachandra Raju, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Sri P.Shamantak, learned counsel representing Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“…to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent vide his Proceedings No.P4/122(73)/2023-RR dated 15.04.2024 directing the petitioner to pay the licence fee with effect from 06.01.2024 is without any basis, highly unwarranted, arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable and violating of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and pass such other order…”

3. This Court vide its orders dated 03.05.2024 passed orders in favour of the petitioner observing as under:

“Heard Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Rammohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TS RTC appearing on behalf of the respondents.

Notice before admission.

A bare perusal of the impugned proceedings No.P4/122(73)/2023-RR dated 15.04.2024 of the 2^nd respondent indicates at the first para that petitioner had entered into an agreement for the period of five years from 06.01.2024 to 05.01.2029 but a perusal of the contents of the letter dated 18.03.2024 vide proceedings No.P4/122(73)/2023-RR of the 2^nd respondent indicates that petitioner had been advised to attend the office along with non judicial stamp paper worth Rs.1,83,027/- for entering into an agreement immediately hence, this Court opines that plea of the 2^nd respondent vide the impugned order dated 15.04.2024 that the petitioner had entered into an agreement for the period of five years from 06.01.2024 to 05.01.2029 is itself, factually incorrect, as borne on record, hence this Court opines that the order impugned of the 2^nd respondent dated 15.04.2024 calling upon the petitioner to pay the licence fee w.e.f. 06.01.2024 to the DM/PKT within a week days from the date of receipt of the impugned letter dated 15.04.2024 needs to be stayed.

Taking into consideration, the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the operation of the proceedings No.P4/ 122(73)/ 2023-RR, dated 15.04.2024 issued by the second respondent directing the petitioner to pay the licence fee with effect from 06.01.21124 in respect of petitioner's stall i.e., Fast Food Centre in JBS, is suspended for a period of eight (8) weeks from today.”

The said orders were being extended from time to time and are in force as on date.

4. The case of the petitioner as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition in brief, is as under:

(i) The Petitioner herein, is a tenderee of tender under Tender Notification No.:P4/797(5-e.Tender)/2023-RR, dated 04.10.2023, and it was allotted to Petitioner, through proceedings vide No.P4/122(73)/2023-RR dated 6.12.2023, for a period of five years on an initial monthly license fee of Rs.6,61,999/- for first year, with an enhancement of 5 % for every consecutive year.

(ii) It is the specific case of the petitioner that after payment of security deposit through demand draft, on representation of petitioner through letter dated 19.02.2024, Respondent No. 2 directed the Depot Manager to hand over the premises to petitioner, through letter dated 21.02.2024. Subsequently, it was handed over to petitioner, and on 12.04.2024, petitioner commenced its business, and the same was even informed to Respondent No.2 by Depot Manager through letter dated 22.04.2024.

(iii) It is further the case of the petitioner that Respondent No.2 issued proceeding vide No.:P4/122(73)/2023-RR d